You might start here:
Well, if "wealth inequality" is bad, clearly "wealth equality" is the desideratum. So, near as I can tell, that'd be GNP/population. I propose a system whereby the government confiscates all private property on 31 Dec each year, and issues cheques to every citizen (or legal resident) on 1 Jan for her "fair share."Seen this kind of pap far too many times to bother again.
All of this noise about wealth inequality but the analysis only completed on a highly selective basis and after-the-fact... I always have to chuckle when I've asked folks of the 'authors' ilk what an acceptable level of income is considered too much... By in large, that number is usually just North of the income level of the commenter - somehow, they never make too much.
Generally I agree, but I would point out that many of those who have acquired wealth have done so by demanding entitlements or special breaks from the government. I have no more sympathy with welfare recipients than you, but I include billionaire welfare recipients in my contempt.The only thief in this equation is the gvt via the multiple levels of taxes that they assess, and the biggest beneficiary by far are those that sit back and demand their entitlements from gvt all the while railing against anyone that has excelled and acquired wealth
Well, if "wealth inequality" is bad, clearly "wealth equality" is the desideratum. So, near as I can tell, that'd be GNP/population. I propose a system whereby the government confiscates all private property on 31 Dec each year, and issues cheques to every citizen (or legal resident) on 1 Jan for her "fair share."
Generally I agree, but I would point out that many of those who have acquired wealth have done so by demanding entitlements or special breaks from the government. I have no more sympathy with welfare recipients than you, but I include billionaire welfare recipients in my contempt.
I am a big fan of a flat, single, easily comprehensible tax. As I've said before, in any tax code that is more than five pages long, the remaining pages are a series of scams on the public. Mostly benefiting the rich.
The fairest tax is a consumption tax.I am a big fan of a flat, single, easily comprehensible tax. As I've said before, in any tax code that is more than five pages long, the remaining pages are a series of scams on the public. Mostly benefiting the rich.
The fairest tax is a consumption tax.
Unfortunately, "fair" is a word without an effective definition. In other words, it's a matter of opinion. Seeing as how you and I are of different opinions on damn near everything else, I'll just assume we have different notions of what's "fair."The fairest tax is a consumption tax.
The author of that video, is a former 1%er who has forsaken his heritage to expose the inequity of his inheritance and those who bilk the rest of humanity fro themselves. He is the heir to the Proctor & Gamble fortune. Not exactly someone who is jealous of the rich. He is an insider who got sick of what he was born into.Seen this kind of pap far too many times to bother again.
All of this noise about wealth inequality but the analysis only completed on a highly selective basis and after-the-fact... I always have to chuckle when I've asked folks of the 'authors' ilk what an acceptable level of income is considered too much... By in large, that number is usually just North of the income level of the commenter - somehow, they never make too much.
The only thief in this equation is the gvt via the multiple levels of taxes that they assess, and the biggest beneficiary by far are those that sit back and demand their entitlements from gvt all the while railing against anyone that has excelled and acquired wealth
Well, if "wealth inequality" is bad, clearly "wealth equality" is the desideratum.
Boring.Not necessarily. There is also a more moderate option. The elimination of the extremes of wealth and poverty.
Right.
The author of that video, is a former 1%er who has forsaken his heritage to expose the inequity of his inheritance and those who bilk the rest of humanity fro themselves. He is the heir to the Proctor & Gamble fortune. Not exactly someone who is jealous of the rich. He is an insider who got sick of what he was born into.
Therein lies his whole problem. He was born with a gold spoon in his mouth. It is a lot different for those that are self made. If his forefathers were that useless there would not be a Proctor and Gamble employing thousands of people either.
And it would seem the solution to that would then be an inheritance tax. What would that have to do with income tax?
And it would seem the solution to that would then be an inheritance tax. What would that have to do with income tax?
All an inheritance will achieve is that the assets will be bound in a corporation or Trust in which case the individual inheriting these entities will become the decision-maker and be able to allocate the resources as they see fit.
You will have accomplished nothing